The court also considered the three queries bordering on the recusant or failure to cooperate with the Forensic Committee, the allegation of fraud, etc issued to the three officers of the claimant union as depicting the interference of the defendants in the affairs of the claimant union.
Employees in Nigeria are free to form and join staff unions in-line with provisions of the Nigerian Labour Act, Trade Unions Act, and Right to Organize and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1948 (No. 98). Many employers’ staff policies, contract of employment and conditions of service reflect this and excitingly accommodate union activities. Some of them do so grudgingly.
An employee who is a union member has two different contracts. The first contract is with the employer. The second is with the union. The two contracts are different and independent. One cannot take the place of another or perform the roles of the other. There must be non-interference by an employer in trade union activities in its workplace and non-interference by a union in the relationship between an employer and employee too.
However, there is usually confusion. Employers believe that any infringement by an employee, even if it was committed as a member of a union, it has the right to sanction, monitor, police, and regulate unions, their members, and their activities.
In the case of Amalgamated Union of Public Corporations, Civil Service Technical and Recreational Services Employees (AUPCTRE) vs Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC) & The Registrar General Corporate Affairs Commission Suit No. NICN/ABJ/62/2021 the court highlighted what could amount to interference by an employer in trade union activities of the union(s) in its workplace.
In the case, the defendants had called to order the claimant, who is a union for junior staff and some senior staff of the 1st defendant, who parade themselves as members of the association acting in flagrant disobedience of the court judgment to order.
The court kicked against the above action of the defendant. Calling to order of the claimant by the defendant implies that they have some kind of policing duty over the trade unionism of the claimant.
The court cited the case of Errand Express Limited v. Maritime Workers Union of Nigeria, unreported Suit No. NIC/LA/39/2011, the judgment of which was delivered on March 26, 2014, where the court made it clear that a union has not been bequeathed the right or appointed to police the world of work” and that “a union, consequently, is not and cannot act as the policeman of labour practices in the world of work”. The court concluded, ‘’In like manner, ’I must say that an employer is not and cannot act as the policeman of trade unionism in its workplace. This will be tantamount to interference on the part of the employer.’’
It is not the duty of the defendants, and hence it is certainly wrong for the defendants, “to call such senior members of staff acting in flagrance disobedience of the court judgment to order.” No one appointed the defendants as the policemen to ensure compliance with this court’s order as they did.
The defendant was also selecting who the members of the claimant should be. The court addressed this and said that it is not open to the defendants to say who the members of the claimant should be. That is the function of the court.
On the defendants setting up a forensic audit committee to audit the accounts of the claimant’s project, the court held that the function of checking the accounts of a trade union is that of the Registrar of Trade Unions, not the defendants, as cited in sections 38 and 39 of the Trade Unions Act (TUA) 2004.
The court also considered the three queries bordering on the recusant or failure to cooperate with the Forensic Committee, the allegation of fraud, etc issued to the three officers of the claimant union as depicting the interference of the defendants in the affairs of the claimant union.
The court kicked against this action and explained that ‘’what can we glean from all of this? First, the actions for which the three queries were issued were acts done for and on behalf of the claimant union by its officers. Secondly, the money in issue is trade union money, not the defendants’. Thirdly, the project in issue is a trade union project, not the defendants’. Fourthly, when the defendants asserted in the queries that what the three officers did amounted to “gross misconduct under the Commission’s Conditions of Service”.
Lastly, the court noted that ‘‘all of these amounts to a simple truth: a blatant interference in the affairs of the claimant union by the defendants. Nothing more, nothing less! Pure and simple! The defendants have no business whatsoever to do all they did.’’ for which the claimant was awarded a recompense assessed at one million naira only representing the general damages suffered by the claimant.
Adebayo Adekola
Team Lead/Founder, Taitum Legal Practitioners
[email protected]
+2348165299774